Re: Serious design flaw in STARTLS documents
Chris Newman <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.apps-tls |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, John Myers wrote: > Chris Newman wrote: > > (1) STARTTLS is only permitted prior to authentication and always causes > > new capability negotiations. > > > > (2) STARTTLS is permitted at any time and has no effect on authentication > > state. Clients SHOULD re-issue the command for capabilities. > > I think (1) is the correct answer. You want to avoid having to do TLS > ... > > If you think you have a situation where active attacks aren't a problem, > but privacy is, I think you've mis-identified your threat model. I'm not convinced that such a threat model is non-existant, but I suppose the added complexity of (2) isn't worth the gain in flexibility. However, I'd like to hear from at least one other person before I go ahead and document (1) in the next version of the IMAP/POP/ACAP TLS spec. - Chris